3 ms·
> other licenses that gave even more freedom and flexibility That gave vendors more freedom and flexibility (to lock their software away from their customers.
by trelane 2y ago
> other licenses that gave even more freedom and flexibility
That gave vendors more freedom and flexibility (to lock their software away from their customers.)
As usual, customers got less freedom and flexibility.
- azinman2 2y agoI disagree. They got software that’s open under a different license that otherwise would have just been purely proprietary, or not created at all (due to the compounding effects of open source)
- trelane 2y agoWe are currently talking about GCC, where they would have gotten the source prior to LLVM. > They got software that’s open under a different license that otherwise would have just been purely proprietary This is not a given, even outside of compilers. It's a heck of a cope there.
- azinman2 2y ago> Without GNU, GPL and Richard Stallman, FOSS would not exist in the first place. The GPL forced companies to make FOSS a thing, whether they liked it or not. I was responding to this, which is more widespread than GCC (although it was one of the first wins of the GNU). There were various companies who wanted to add on backends and other bits to GCC, but wouldn’t due to the license. That’s one of the reasons LLVM is so popular.